Can you visualize?

In My Humble Opinion
41

Not really. When I wrote the original piece, in 2001, I tended to think that (though I was not sure), but I am less confident now, partly because of further emails I have received from people like yourself, over the years, and partly because of recent neurological literature. One thing that particularly changed my view is a 2010 paper by Zeman et al.,* about a man who used to be able to visualize but suddenly lost the ability. It does seem likely that he suffered some sort of minor stroke, but it appears to have had practically no other impact on his mental abilities (or his personality, or anything) except that he can no longer visualize. It seems that he used to know what it is like to visualize, and he noticed when it went away (enough to go to a doctor about it).

I now think I don’t understand the phenomenon, but I am confident nobody else does either, and (outside the brain-damage literature) there has been virtually no scientific research on the subject. This may be, partly, because complete lack of waking visual imagery, in otherwise neurologically healthy people, is so rare, and so difficult to pin down. But actually we do not even know how rare it is. Estimates vary from about 12% to “less than 2%” of the population (none of the figures seem to be much better than informed guesses, and my own guess is that the truth is well toward the low end of this range).

I am sorry that the prose of the main piece is so impenetrable. It was originally a listserv post, more or less the equivalent of a message board post, and I wrote it in one long session, late at night, and was nearly falling asleep by the end, so it never got revised. I do tend to write over-long, over complex sentences, but I usually try to break them up a bit when I revise. As it had already been available on the web, I did not want to edit it when I posted it on my own site, either, but I thought it worth preserving because there is so little else that is available on the subject at all (and much of what there is, is wrong, being based on misunderstandings of Galton’s methodologically crude study from the 19th century).

You may actually find the “addendum” material at the bottom, written more recently, a bit easier to follow and perhaps more interesting (no promises, though).

¬¬¬¬¬¬
*Zeman, A.Z.J., Della Sala, S., Torrens, L.A., Gountouna, V.-E., McGonigle, D.J., & Logie, R.H. (2010). Loss of Imagery Phenomenology with Intact Visuo-spatial Task Performance: A Case of ‘Blind Imagination.’ Neuropsychologia (48 #1) 145-155.

42

Thank you njtt. This subject has always been fascinating to me. Sometimes I wonder if people mean the same thing when they discuss “mental picture.” I can’t decide if people who say they do this mean the same thing as I do. Do they mean they close their eyes and have like a hallucination or the vivid imagery I experience in dreams? Or do they mean they imagine the picture, which to me means they “pretend” there is a visual image and describe what they pretend is there. Do you get my drift here?

43

I can “see” pretty much any object that I can imagine, but I “see” the object in what could be described as a separate visual buffer of sorts in my brain that is separate from the part of the brain that handles vision. I can “see” a red car in my mind and even open the doors and drive it down a “road”, and, in a sense, can superimpose the buffers and imagine objects being present around me, but I cannot actually inject them into my field of vision in the sense of being able to fool myself into believing that they are actually there. I can imagine that I am holding a gun and point it around, but I “see” the gun in a different way and can always tell what is actually coming from my eyes as opposed to coming from my imagination.

Does this make any sense?

44

Yes I do, and, indeed the original 2001 post on the page I gave the link to is essentially about that, about the fact that it is very hard to tell what other people mean when they talk about “mental pictures” or “images” or whatever words they may like to use.

It is also very hard to know exactly what people mean when they talk about having, or not having imagery, or about their images being vivid, or faint, or whatever. One of the paradoxes of imagery research is that although people seem to be reasonably consistent about whether they claim that their imagery is normally vivid or normally faint, this bears virtually no relation to how they perform on most cognitive tasks, including those tasks (mostly spatial reasoning ones) that most people say they use visual imagery to do. There is some objective evidence that most people do indeed use imagery for these tasks, but how vividly they experience it seems to be quite irrelevant.

There has been a recent report that fMRI scans of people who claim vivid imagery show greater activation in their visual cortex, when they are having an image, than do people who say their imagery is faint or weak. Frankly, however, I do not trust this. There are all sorts of ways to fuck up with fMRI scans, some fMRI experiments have not found any elevated activity in visual cortex whilst people are experiencing imagery, and people whose visual cortex has been partly or largely destroyed quite often report having vivid, hallucinatory imagery, usually in precisely those parts of their visual field in which they are blind because of the destroyed areas of visual cortex. (The places where brain damage, very occasionally, leads to loss of conscious visual imagery, are not in the main visual cortex areas, at the back of the head, but seem to be in the temporal or parietal cortex, at the sides or towards the top of the head.)

One of the things that I think needs to be tested in people like yourself, who seem to have no conscious waking imagery, but do not seem to be brain damaged, is how good they are at the spatial reasoning tasks mentioned above, and whether they show the same patterns of response in them as as “normal” imagers. This might give us some clue as to whether “non-imagers” are just at the far end of a continuous spectrum - stretching from vivid imagers at one end, through middlingly vivid and weak imagers, and on down to so weak you don’t register it - or whether there is some sort of radical discontinuity (as the brain damage evidence seems to suggest). Some of the non-imagers I have been in contact with, via email or message boards, do say that they have trouble with spatial reasoning, but others do not (or are not willing to admit to it). Even with those who say they have a problem, it is hard to tell, without proper testing, whether their (lack of) spatial reasoning ability is really abnormal, or just part of the normal range of variability.

Unfortunately, nobody yet seems to have manged to catch a true, non-brain-damaged non-imager and get them into a lab for proper testing. (And, of course, for meaningful and reliable results you would need to test quite a few of them.) I do not really understand why that is, but I think at least part of it must be that the condition is very rare (even though “weak,” unvivid imagery, is quite common).

45

Yes, it makes sense.

Again, there is little or no research specifically addressing this issue, but there is a lot of indirect evidence to suggest that most people are like you, and experience most of their visual imagery as not being projected into the world around them, but as “in the head” (or, probably more accurately, as not being in any specific place at all). On the other hand, there is also good reason to think that most people can project their imagery in front of them if they want to. I believe I can do it (though I was better at it when I was younger), even though most of my imagery is “in my head”, and most of it (including the projected stuff) is not very vivid. It may be the case that some people experience most of their imagery as projected.

Be wary, though, of expressing your point in terms of a “visual buffer” in the brain. That begs some very hairy theoretical questions. The best known neuroscientific theory of imagery does indeed talk about a “visual buffer” for imagery, but it expressly identifies it with the main visual cortex areas at the back of the head (occipital cortex). This is despite the fact, as I mentioned in my previous post, that people whose occipital visual cortex is badly damaged, leaving them partially or totally blind, often seem to experience vivid visual imagery. (Also, as you imply, if the “visual buffer” where imagery is formed is the same as the visual cortex responsible for vision itself, it seems peculiar that most people do not experience all or most of their imagery as projected.) There are alternative theories of the neural mechanisms of imagery that are better able to account for these facts (and others), but they do not use the concept of a “visual buffer” at all.

46

This discussion makes me wonder about tests like this one. Do people who visualize rotate the image in their minds then pick out the correct one? How I solve them is a verbal mental process - as in I say to myself, “okay, the square at the top of original image is open and the one in the bottom right corner is solid.” Then I use a process of elimination to find the correct out of the choices presented. Is this me compensating for my “deficit”???

47

Actually, I left out a step in my description for finding my answer for problem two. It’s the “if I turn the image this way, then the open box will be… etc”. until I hit something that isn’t right then I move to the next one. So I guess these are a lot of work for me. :slight_smile:

48

I can visualize geometric shapes and spaces very well. In the “red car” example upthread, I can only do that sort of thing with a specific example (I’m seeing a red 1964 Ford Falcon right now. It’s a 4-door with small chrome hubcaps) I can’t really come up with a generic red car, though. I think this may be that I can only visualize something I’ve actually seen in the past? Just guessing.

I also have some sort of face-blindness. I didn’t know what it was called until a few years ago. Recently while looking at a picture of the local hi school marching band, I misidentified my own kid. In that particular photo, she was carrying a slightly different instrument and marching in a different slot than usual. Apparently my mind stores more of the positioning and ancillary stuff to id someone then their face.

The geometric/spatial memory thing seems to have really blessed me though. In other threads, I’ve mentioned my uncanny skill at backing up large 18-wheelers. Much of the time (at least in blind-side backing) I do this with a “memory” of the space I’m headed for, since I can’t see it. I’m running a model in my mind of the space and the trailer easing into it. I also worked at the airport for several years putting airplanes into hangars with one of those small tractors (we called them tugs). Fitting in the maximum number was like a giant puzzle. Since I can’t see anything but the nose of the plane in front of me, it’s a matter of moving it within my memory map until it fits where I want it. Usually I could do this first try, without running around to check my progress. Of course, the one time I was wrong, it was a really expensive mistake.

Sorry for rambling, but it’s an interesting thread, and I seem to have a weird visualization ability (suck at most things, but really good at one thing).

49

Well, I do both. I think “OK, I’ll rotate the image this way… that leaves the open box here” and I picture the open box in place. I’d say I “draw” it but it’s not like I imagine drawing it, more as if I’m using a mental sticker of the open box.

I can visualize just fine, but then, I only visualize to the level of detail I need. If I think of “a red car”, I may get one of three images:
the red Mini Cooper we had when I was little, and which is still in the family,
the red Honda Civic I had for a couple of years,
or a child’s-drawing picture, which sort of looks like the oldest models of Seat Ibizas but that’s because the oldest Seat Ibizas looked like they’d been designed by the engineers’ children. You know, just the boxy body and the four wheels.

I know people who have serious problems visualizing/analizing spatial problems; from my grandmother Abuelita (who couldn’t find her way in a new place until she’d been there for months) to my sister in law (who can’t picture what a room will look like with the furniture in a different position), to that classmate who was unable to find elements of symmetry in a cube.

The whole class must have tried to help that classmate at one point or another, but it’s like she couldn’t even start the process. We’d say something like “ok, take the cube. Hold it. Check where every edge is. — no no, without moving it around, just in the position in which you had it! OK, so, hold it still. Check how many edges you can see while holding it still and where they are. Now turn it thiiis way, one quarter of a turn, let’s leave it in this position… can you see as many edges as before?” “I don’t know!” “How many edges did you see before?” “Four” “OK, how many do you see now?” “I don’t know!” “Count them?” I still haven’t figured out how much was anxiety and how much other factors.

If you can stare at a die’s 5-point side directly and see that it’s got symmetry planes from corner to corner and mid-side to mid-side, you’re ahead of her! If you can figure out there’s an axis down the center (you get the same “view” when you rotate the die 90º around it, so long as you’re not seeing the other faces), you’re waaaay ahead.

50

I’m an artist, and I can’t imagine not being able to visualize. Right now I’m working on something that’s extremely complex, and I have a complete mental picture of it, down to the smallest detail. I don’t even have to close my eyes.

It’s no different than music that’s going on in your head, though you’re not actually hearing anything.

51

Mine is somewhat like that.

What best describes my “visualization” is trying to read in your dreams. You can see the words there on the page, but when you look closely, they seem hard to grasp. If you struggle, and you can maybe get a couple of the words.

When I visualize a red car, it is a red car-shaped blob type thing with a windshield. It is not going to have door handles, rear view mirrors, hubcaps, dents, etc. If it needed to have those, I would really struggle to “hold” such a detailed image in my head.

It is not nearly the same as looking at a photograph of a red car.

Actually “seeing” a photograph is like driving in a car on the interstate. “Seeing” something in my head is like riding a one speed bike. They are similar in that I am moving in both examples, but very very different.

52

I find this fascinating. I am a very strong and vivid visualizer; for instance, right now I am seeing a Rubic’s Cube in my mind’s eye, and can rotate it and turn a set of faces. But I doubt that the location of the faces is correct, or even if the set of colors is correct. As I mentioned earlier, I have a strongly visual memory for locations and can “walk through” any home I’ve ever lived in, any school I’ve attended, movie theater I’ve been in, etc. But like pullin, I have a terrible memory for faces. It takes me a long time to memorize a person’s face, and parties are a nightmare of people expecting me to remember who they are.

53

I visualize but in solving those problems I was mostly doing what you describe. I wasn’t saying anything in my mind but I would generate a short list of relative attributes (this part of the pattern is next to that part or opposite from that other part, etc.) and then compare the other images.

The 2nd to last one involved a little mental image manipulation but that was just to confirm my suspicion, it wasn’t really used to solve the problem.

The last one didn’t seem to require mentally folding the paper because the critical information (which sides would be adjacent and in what orientation) seemed kind of “instantly” available, like if you’ve seen something frequently enough you’ve already learned how the parts connect and how they are related.

54

I don’t think most people’s description of being able to visualize something is as phenomenal as it sounds. When I think of “visualizing” it’s not like actually seeing something. For me, it’s more like locating something in space. If you really could manipulate detailed images in your mind you’d be capable of some amazing things. Likewise for the idea of “photographic” memory. I don’t believe there is such a thing.

I’m one of those people who excels at spatial reasoning. I instantly and unconsciously develop a map in my mind whenever I’m in a new place. I’ve taken several different kinds of tests over the years and I’ve consistently scored off the charts in spatial aptitude. (>99%) For me, the idea of “visualizing” is not like “seeing” something. It feels like a different process to me, much more vague. Sometimes my visual memory is good, sometimes, not. Sometimes I can remember the physical location on a page where I read something, almost like my mind made a map of the page. But it’s just a location. I can not “look” at different parts of an image I’m visualizing and discover something I hadn’t seen before. It’s more like an impression with a few prominent remembered elements, some of which may be inaccurately remembered.

I’m a good draftsman (in an artistic sense), but I cannot draw anything I see in my mind. The process is more like, putting a line on paper and checking if it matches what I think is in my minds eye. If my visual memory is fuzzy, my drawing doesn’t look like what I’m trying to remember, which is what usually happens, and which means I need an image to look at.

To be honest, I believe other people’s experiences are similar to mine, and they don’t actually “see” anything in their mind’s eye. If they did “see” things, they’d be phenomenal at copying pictures on paper just by “tracing” it off of what they see in their mind. No one can do that. All artists require great amounts of practice or some kind of image as a model. So I believe the differences in “visualizers vs. non-visualizers” are just differences in language that people are using to describe their mental experience.

55

I can’t see why. I can look at the lamp on my desk, but I would be unable to draw it properly on a paper. Despite seeing it, I can’t “project” the image on a paper and trace it. So, according to your hypothesis, I don’t see anything, even with my eyes open.

And I honestly can’t find another word than “seeing” when it comes to mental images. Finally it isn’t a “phenomenal” ability, as you said, anyway. Reading the thread, it’s what the majority of people experience.

I have two questions for people who say they can’t vizualize (I too didn’t know that there were such people) :

-If you look at something and close your eyes, can you at least vizualize the thing you were watching a couple second before?

-Can you at least vizualize things that are very important and familiar to you (say, your living room, or your children)?

56

If you tell me to picture a red car, I’ll remember a photo I saw of a red car. Can’t visualize something I’ve never seen; it’s like my brain draws a bad picture with a crayon in its fist.

I can’t visualize things that are not visible except in metaphor. When I think of computer code I can tie it to images of knotted string or traffic jams or tree branches, but nothing abstract.

57

I can visualize pictures and objects well enough. But I’m quite good at logistical visualization of resources involved with my airline job.

We have about 20 airplanes and 60 pilots / flight attendants working every day on various routes.

Every morning, I study our planned operations (takes about 3 minutes) - which aircraft on which route with which crew members. Where the crew is meeting the aircraft and where everything has to end up at night.

When something goes wrong such as airplane breaks down, weather disrupts planned route, airport closes for whatever reason, or whatever the crisis of the hour is, I get called to troubleshoot.

The skill isn’t innate. It took a couple of years to develop. But I can see the whole route system, where the aircraft are, where the crews are, where the connections are and after considering things for a minute, I can usually mitigate the situation with the absolute minimum of disruption to passengers’ travel plans and operational efficiency.

58

The first example are easy. So, yes, I just rotate the hexagons, for instance, to pick the correct one.

However, I’m not very good at this kind of spatial tests. When it comes to complex shapes made of many cubes, for instance, I’ve a hard time rotating them I have to fall back to using logic : “the part up and on the left must be down and to the right after the rotation”.

I still keep visualizing, though, but I have to “build” the mental image using reasonning : “so the down left corner is empty (vizualize a general shape with an empty corner) the pointy thing should end up…errr…(thinking)…on the left side (add a pointy thing on the left side to my mental image)”

59

So, you can visualize a red car, and presumably and elephant. Can you visualize for instance a red elephant with wheels?

60

Another question that crosses my mind. How sexual fantaisies of people who can’t visualize are like?